The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

That's very interesting. I wonder why the mighty Avenger was used so little? Perhaps range issues? Or lethality? I know that 30mm are devastating to the top armor of a tank, but perhaps at longer ranges the low angle means they can't hit the top armor, and they aren't powerful enough to really damage the side armor? Snipe would know, or can ask someone who knows.

As far as the importance of the Maverick vs the Warthog, the fact that the vast majority of Mavs were launched from 'Hogs indicates to me that the Hog is by far the best firing platform for Mavericks. Can't separate the weapon from the launch platform, IMO. The Hog is the best 'cause of the Mav, and the Mav is the best 'cause of the Hog. Same with Hellfire and Apache. Gotta love synergy.

This is a common misconception, mostly due to the remarkably similar aerodynamic layout between the YA-9 and the Su-25 .

The aerodynamic layout of the Su-25 was nevertheless defined as early as August 1968 with the Sukhoi Design Bureau's T-8 LSSh project, i.e. more than 4 years before YA-9's first flight.

How's it you're comparing the first flight date of the northrup bird to the first 'on-paper' date of the Su-25?

Six companies submitted designs in 1970, so it is quite reasonable to expect those designs were not just sitting there waiting, but had been developed to some degree (on paper of course) for some time before their designs had been submitted.

How's it you're comparing the first flight date of the northrup bird to the first 'on-paper' date of the Su-25?

Six companies submitted designs in 1970, so it is quite reasonable to expect those designs were not just sitting there waiting, but had been developed to some degree (on paper of course) for some time before their designs had been submitted.

When was the USAF A-X RFP first issued? Anyone know?

Why would the Russians copy a design that hadn't even flown yet? Seems kinda stupid to me. It's a pretty obvious design, sounds like convergent evolution to me.

That's very interesting. I wonder why the mighty Avenger was used so little? Perhaps range issues?

Mav has about 6-7x the range of the gun.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Or lethality? I know that 30mm are devastating to the top armor of a tank, but perhaps at longer ranges the low angle means they can't hit the top armor, and they aren't powerful enough to really damage the side armor? Snipe would know, or can ask someone who knows.

According to the Hogdrivers i know and love, 30x173mm HVAPDU ammo will kill a tank pretty easily from any reasonable aspect.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

As far as the importance of the Maverick vs the Warthog, the fact that the vast majority of Mavs were launched from 'Hogs indicates to me that the Hog is by far the best firing platform for Mavericks. Can't separate the weapon from the launch platform, IMO. The Hog is the best 'cause of the Mav, and the Mav is the best 'cause of the Hog. Same with Hellfire and Apache. Gotta love synergy.

The Maverick is pretty good on anything, but the Hog carries more of them than it's peers and it can keep them aloft a lot longer with less need for tanking. It can also base MUCH closer to the fight, flying off rough fields or reinforced highway sections if needed.

And of course once the Mavs are gone the Hog still has CBUs, Mk82s, and the gun, which all A-10 pilots LOVE.(feel free to ask any of them, they aint shy about it, lolol).

That's very interesting. I wonder why the mighty Avenger was used so little? Perhaps range issues? Or lethality? I know that 30mm are devastating to the top armor of a tank, but perhaps at longer ranges the low angle means they can't hit the top armor, and they aren't powerful enough to really damage the side armor? Snipe would know, or can ask someone who knows.

Not being there, I'd wager that it would be something to do with the fact that the maverick is pretty much fire and forget from tens of miles away (what is it, 20-30miles?)

Which the A10 is no doubt capable of doing... but if you've got mavericks left on the pylons... why tempt fate?

The pilot will try to roll into his strafing run just before opening fire(sometimes after as seen in the pic below) to prevent the sort of exposure you're talking about, and the A-10s gun easily outranges any of the 37mm or smaller WP AAA systems, but there's no doubt that anytime you close to within about 1.5-2 miles with the enemy you're exposed.

Ah. And when you have a shot, you take it. So by the time you get to gun range, there's no targets left that aren't burning hulks already. How unfortunate.

According to the Hogdrivers i know and love, 30x173mm HVAPDU ammo will kill a tank pretty easily from any reasonable aspect.

What about a frontal shot on the turret face? Or the glacis plate?

The Maverick is pretty good on anything, but the Hog carries more of them than it's peers and it can keep them aloft a lot longer with less need for tanking. It can also base MUCH closer to the fight, flying off rough fields or reinforced highway sections if needed.

Well you have to consider that the A-10 will always be above the tank(at least 50 feet, but typically much higher), so it will always be attacking into the thinner top armor to some extent, but as a matter of practice a hog won't strafe right into the face of a target(adds a lot more risk), but will try to come in out of the sun in a dive, either from the rear or on a flank. Direct head on attacks are typically avoided if at all possible, and always avoided in a CAS role(in those situations all aircraft attack paralell to the FEBA to avoid the risk of fratricide from short bombs and to maximize 'on target time' with their weapons).